This file is a collection of various messages having a common theme thatI have collected from my reading of the various computer networks. Somemessages date back to 1989, some may be as recent as yesterday.

This file is part of a collection of files called Stefan's Florilegium.These files are available on the Internet at: http://www.florilegium.org

I have done a limited amount of editing. Messages having to do withseperate topics were sometimes split into different files and sometimesextraneous information was removed. For instance, the message IDs wereremoved to save space and remove clutter.

The comments made in these messages are not necessarily my viewpoints. Imake no claims as to the accuracy of the information given by theindividual authors.

Please respect the time and efforts of those who have written thesemessages. The copyright status of these messages is unclear at thistime. If information is published from these messages, please givecredit to the orignator(s).

Unto the gentles of the Rialto greetings.Sam Bassett, who is collecting moneys for a tabard for the herald of Canada,asks about period tabards. To that I reply that all the books on costume willprobably not help him as much as a heraldry book called 'Heraldry; Sources,Symbols and Meanings' by Ottfried Neubecker, specifically pages 10-25. Thisbook should be easily obtainable, and his local herald or local library mayhave a copy.

My own personal formula for a tabard (I've made about a dozen, and another 7-8are on the way) goes something like this. The front and back reach to the topof the legs or perhaps a little lower, and flare out from about a foot belowthe shoulders. The sleeves reach about 3/4 of the distace to the elbow, andare constructed in a half-oval shape. They should almost reach the place wherethe tabard starts to flare out on the sides. The neck hole should be madepretty much a circle, as the tabard should have no front or back, and amedieval tabard was worn with the sleeves hanging front and back (turned 90degrees) if the wearer was a pursuivant.

The materials to be used offer an endless supply, and I don't really feel upto discussing them. One thing to consider, however, is that much of medievalheraldic display was accomplished by painting fabric rather than appliqueingfabric onto fabric.

Taran****************************************************************************Lord Taran of Windy Hill John H. CaseBarony of Carolingia 87 Moreland St.Kingdom of the East Somerville, MA 02145-1441 JCASE@tufts.bitnet****************************************************************************

Name: Ciorstan Macamhlaidh Y: BY: Machine #246 @7400

does not indicate if you are a lord or a lady!!Anyhow, questions are never silly. Ignorance can be cured, only stupidity isfatal, to paraphrase one Master Lazarus Long!13th-14th century garb covers a rather large area, since fashions went fromthe basic, loose fitting T-Tunic (and no tailoring) to an extremely tailored,formfitting cotehardie. A good T-tunic pattern is McCalls 7732, as long asone loses the stupid angel wings, the crown and what's called the Large Drape.What would be very effective is an angel'sleeved tunic layered over astraight-sleeved one. These garments are very simple and don't take a lot oftime to make up-- the last pair of t-tunics I knocked off took four hours,complete with trim. This is a unisex look.As for cotehardies, that's a little more difficult. I need to know if you'remale or female.Any more questions, feel free to ask!ciorstan

Cariadoc started a thread (with the aid of NicMaoilan) on things thought tobe period that aren't, and things thought not to be period that are.

Safety pins, which go back to the Roman occupation of Britain, at least,for I have seen bronze safety pins in the collections of the British Museumand the digs at Caerleon. (I am talking about the type with a simple hookto hold the pin end, not a sheet metal casing around the end intended tocatch the pin end). I have no evidence (as yet) on their use in the interim.

SERIOUS authenticity (such as hand-work and complicated, tailored, multi-panelled patterns) can be very expensive indeed. But as Thomas mentions, such garmentsshould last for mant years. In period a well-made garment made out of durablefabrics could be inherited over several generations, constantly being alteredand made to conform to the nearest current fashion. (I've seen an article on adress that was discovered to be much older than it looked. A seamstress did asort of "forensic" investigation of what the seams hid of older construction,and found it had been at least three different dresses over about 200 years!)Collars and sleeves were often saved and used again, or discarded and the dressrefashioned by adding newer ones.

If you cannot afford absolute authenticity just yet, consult with the person doing the sewing to see if an authentic-appearing garment that will withstandonly outward inspection cannot be compromised upon. My own favorite dress has afalse underdress, with fairly convincing slash work, but I was able to use afavorite blouse I could no longer wear, because I actually cut it up and sewedit under the slashes, saving much material. And don't get your heart set upon avery complicated tailoring if your purse is slim...the more cutting andassembling of little panels, the more it will cost. (And this is true of mundaneclothing as well...)

There are, however, quite a few sources in Swedish, several in German andlots (surpriese, surprise..:) in Finnish. If you think that any of thesewould be helpful, please drop me a note and I'll mail the sources to you.

Well, there are indeed people interested in sourcesto confirm the period use of pockets, so...

The best source on this subject is Janet Arnold'sPatterns of Fashion, Vol. III: The Cut and Constructionof Clothes for Men and Women c. 1560-1620. Arnold showsphotographs and detailed pattern reconstructions fornearly all the surviving garments from this period.There are examples of pre-1600 trunk hose and pluderhosenwith pockets. There is also a pair of venetian hose, orvenetian breeches, which have pockets in the seems at theside. These date from 1615-1620; however, I see no reasonto doubt that earlier Venetians would have had pockets also,since other types of hosen clearly did. There is also a*doublet* with a pocket: It is the leather doublet worn byNils Sture when he was murdered in Upsula Castle in 1567.The doublet has a short skirt that covers the lacing stripfor the points that attached the pluderhosen, with a pocketset into the front of the skirt on the righthand side. Thepocket is covered by a flap that is closed by three smallbuttons which match the buttons that close the front of thisdoublet. There is a matching flap on the opposite side, but no pocket underneath it. (I am currently making a copy of thisdoublet.)

Arnold also quotes a story from John Bulwer's "Anthropometamorphosis:Man Transform'd or the Artificial Changling" (1653) referring toan earlier time whne "the Law was in force against wearing Bayesstuffed in their Breeches." A man with "breeches very full" wasarrested and brought before a judge, where he "drew out of hisbreeches a paire of Sheets, two Table Cloaths, ten Napkings, foureShirts, a Brush, a Glass, and a Combe, Night-caps, and other things...saying... your Highnesse may understand... I have no safer a store-house,these pockets do serve me for a roome."

A similar story is told by a period song, a recording of which wasbrought to dance class some weeks ago. The song, whose title Iunfortunately do not know, tells the humorous story of a man whobelieved his breeches were full of devils: it turned out that thebreeches, in which the man stored cheese, had become infested withrats. :-) The breeches in both these stories were probably trunkhose, a highly padded style popular in the second half of the 1500's.

In "A Yorkshire Tragedy," an Elizabethan play of uncertain authorshipsometimes attributed to William Shakespeare, the character Sam entersin scene 1 with "an almanack in my pocket, and three ballads in mycodpiece." This by itself would not be very strong evidence, however,since the Oxford English Dictionary says the word pocket first meant abag or sack. The example usage given for 1570, however -- "He bare alwaysabout hym, in hys bosom or pocket, a little booke contayning the Psalmes ofDauid." -- might be taken to indicate a doublet with a breast pocket.

A pair of wide breeches, called galligascons after their origin in Gascony,made in England for the Court fool in 1575, were recorded in EgertonManuscript #2806 as having "pocketts, poyntes & a peire of netherstockesto them." It seems unlikely that pouches would have been recorded aspart of the breeches.

There is also strong negative evidence that comes from examiningElizabethan-era portraits: pouches are seldom, if ever visible. Itseems reasonable to assume, then, that the men who wore these costumeshad some hidden means of carrying small personal articles. Interestinglyenough, the only leg wear in Janet Arnold's book that does not havepockets is the pair of pluderhosen worn by Nils Sture, who had a pocketin his doublet. Based on this evidence, it seems that, from about 1560,a man's suit that did not have a pocket somewhere would be the exception rather than the rule.

After posting the requested information on pockets in Elizabethan men'sclothing, the question occured to me, "Did women have pockets also?" So, last night I opened up Janet Arnold's book and started lookingat the female costumes. Sure enough, there is a skirt or petticoatin the Nationalmussel in Copenhagen that has a slit in the side fora pocket (although the pocket bag is now missing). This particularskirt dates from c. 1615; however, women's fashions changed slowlyduring the early 17th Century, so it seems reasonable to think theymight have been used before 1600.

Another possibility is pockets in women's doublets. These were virtuallyindistinguishable from male doublets not only to modern eyes (theone example Arnold shows was originally misidentified as a boy'sdoublet) but to Elizabethans as well: There are numerous periodwritings commenting on this fact, one of the most famous beingStubbes's "Anatomie of Abuses." Since a small minority of men's doublets did have pockets (as proved by the surviving specimenwhich belong to Nils Sture), some women's doublets may have had them as well.

From article <9110301636.AA07821@samba.acs.unc.edu>, by BLUND.ILS@mhs.unc.EDU (BLUND):

> I recently ran across a brief mention in a fairly reputable source that > Icelanders and other Norse Colonists have been making cloth using wool yarn > and "needles" in a fashion "similar to knitting" since the age of > expansion. Does anyone know anything more about a technique "similar to > knitting," used in the Middle Ages?> > And, how about knitting itself? I would think warm wooly socks would be > perfect for cold Northern winters. . . :-)

I am told that knitting is period, but have yet to see proof. However,leggings are another matter. There are some Norse leggings that were madeusing Spang. Peter Collingwood's The Techniques of Sprang mentions them anddescribes more techniques than you are likely to use in a lifetime.

The Irish also have evidence of leggings but in late period the used Friezeto make them. This, I am told, is a thick haiary cloth which is much morelikely to be windproof than even a thick knit. The leggings and therelevant evidence is described by A.T.Lucas in his article on Irish Footwear.

It seems to me that knit stockings might work in cold still air but are likelyto be worse than useless under wet and windy conditions. I frequently wearknit sweaters in the mundane world and find them worthless for warmth inany kind of wind. Thus, I am not surprised at the rareity of knits in period.

For Byzantine garb - primary sources - try any art history book and look forpictures of the mosaics. Ravenna had a bunch, as did many of the churches.In particular, there are good ones of Justinian and Theodora, and a"procession of twelve female saints (virgins?)" one that is particularlygood. Then go to _Ancient Greek, Roman and Byzantine Costume and Decoration_for a good explanation of how all those folds got there. Do *not* trust theByzantine line-drawings in Doreen Yarwood's _Encyclopedia of World Costume_ -she blows it on one of the female saints from that mosaic by turning the drapeof a chiton-like undertunic into a cuffed sleeves. And ghod knows what else!

For those interested in a well-researched secondary source on Byzantinegarb, I recommend _Fashion at the Center of the World_, written byMistress Veleda of Isenfir (known to many as the artist responsiblefor Lady Tudor Glitz & Beast). Please send e-mail if you would likeher address.

As to grommets being period, well, yes and no. In the Italian Renaissancegarb was made with "maglie" which were metal rings and lacing eyes. A goodreference is the book on Italian Fashion in the Quattrocento by JaquelineHerald (I think that's the spelling). There are many portraits of women wearingclothes with these "maglie" and some period descriptions of women's wardrobes. Another source for info. on metal rings used for lacing is Janet Arnold'sPatterns of Fashion 15xx - 16xx (I forget the exact dates, it's the 3rd in aseries). She shows some clothing using several different types of metalfastenings, at least one of which is a grommet-like thing. Now the grommets that we have (t-shaped metal rings that fasten into andaround each other and fabric) may or may not be what they used then. I have notexamined any of the period ones up close, and don't recall the descriptionswell being at work. I guess Arnold would be the better source for that, she hastaken this garb apart to see exactly how it was made. My best guess is thatthey are just metal rings that were sewn around (making a reinforced eyelet). Whether or not these sorts of fastenings were used in earlier period garb Ihave no clue.

Winifred de Schyppewallebotham(that's Middle English for "From the valley with the stream where the sheepwere washed")(Nolite Secundo Flumine Natare)Lee Katman == Thirteen/WNET == New York, NY

From: adn@mayo.EDU (Ann Nielsen)Date: 12 Nov 91 14:34:34 GMT

Greetings unto those who peruse the Rialto from Lady Therica!

There has been a bit of discussion about grommets. When I first started theSCA, I was told that 'grommets weren't period'. Being fairly sure that zippers weren't either ;-) , I asked how to make holes for lacings, andhow else they held their clothes to their bodies (rope? duct tape? Super glue?)I was then told that they sewed around holes --- ie, it was possible to usethe grommet to make the hole, but then you sewed around the grommet (using awhip stitch) to hide it.

Not only does this hide the grommet (and I am the world's worst grommet-putter-inner --- they ALWAYS turn out ugly!), it makes it stronger. I don't know howmany times I've seen garments with 10 holes for lacing and 8 grommets ---two had fallen out, or been pulled out. Yes, it takes some time, but youwould be surprised at how quickly it does go, and how much better the garmentlooks.

This brings up a tangent for me. On some of my garb, Tudor/Elizabethan tobe exact, I use a side slit. The overdress is open from just below myarmpit to a bit past the waist. I then use grommets, which I oversew in matching thread to hide them, and lace the side with matching ribbon orties. In effect, the opening becomes invisible. Especially since when locatedunder your arm, it is rarely seen (people are very strange when they liftyour arm to look at how you got in your dress..). I have two reasons fordoing this: 1) in Janet Arnold's book (Patterns of Fashion) and severalothers I have, you can see they are laced into their garb from the side;2) other drawings/photos/research I have shows that they were sewn intotheir garb each time they wore it. Now, I like my friends. I like my friendsa lot. I don't want to wear them out. And I think that having them sew meinto my garb each time I wear it would be (perhaps) entertaining the firsttime, and thereafter send them screaming into the sunset --- and an imposi-tion. Plus, I try to keep in mind that there might come a time when I willhave to get dressed by myself --- a real task with Tudor/Elizabethan. I have been chastised for having the side opening/grommets/lacings. I amcurious --- what do you all think? Especially those with more experiencein garb than me. Is this a viable option? Am I really taking away from thespirit of things by lacing my garb thusly? (I've also used hooks and eyeson some garb, so that when fastened, it's impossible to tell how I got intoit.) I feel that lacing my gowns this way adds to the 'essence', sincethe backs of my gowns are smooth, as they are portrayed in the paintings.(Not all, of course. There's ALWAYS exceptions! ;-) )

I avoid grommets for lacing whenever possible, mostly for reasons statedhere (They pull out, they're hard to put in, they're hard to find in theproper size). I also don't use them because I, in my not terriblyextensive research on the subject, haven't been able to find anypictures of what looks like grommet style lacings. (Holes for pointsdon't count, they've always looked like sewed eyelets to me, notgrommets)

Instead, I use the eye part of a hook and eye set., 'cause A) they'reeasier than grommets, B) they're hidden by the edge of the garment so Iget an even match and hidden lacing when fully tightened, but can showthe lacing by loosening it a bit, C) I've found pictures that lookalmost exactly like my garments look when I've got the eyes sewed in.

On the other hand, I'm really interested, though a bit confused, bydescriptions of sewed in grommets. Are these just eyelet rings that aresewed onto the rim of an round "buttonhole", or are these actually"pound till it's in" grommets that are reinforced by sewing. (Or haveboth been described, and I've just been too confused to figure that out)

toodles, margaret macdubhsidhe

From: sbloch@euler.ucsd.edu (Steve Bloch)Date: 1 Dec 91 17:10:51 GMT

Last night I was discussing how to construct a certain medieval articleof clothing (Arab-style pants, if it matters) with a friend, and wefound ourselves wondering what seams were actually used in the MiddleAges. In particular, I suspect that a lot of the seams we do assecond nature would be thought of as really silly in a culture withoutsewing machines, and vice versa. Has anybody examined survivingmedieval clothes closely enough to tell what the seams are? (Oh,Thjora, this one's for you....) Are the following documentable:1) right-sides-together, sew near the edge, spread apart2) French seams3) flat-felled seams4) right-side to wrong-side, overlapping by 3/4" or so5) Same as 4), but then rolled over and sewed down again to form asort of flat-fell6) etc.

For further information on period construction techniques, seeif you can find (probably via interlibrary loan from a school witha textiles specialty)

Flury-Lemberg, Mechthild; _Textile Conservation and Research, adocumentation of the textile department on the occasion of thetwentieth anniversary of the Abegg Foundation_; Bern: Abegg-Stiftung,1988.

Its filled with pictures and drawings showing original articles andthe steps taken to preserve them - which often means taking themapart to clean (giving good pattern examples - some are evendrafted to [metric] scale). Lots of discussion of materials used.Articles include tapestries, flags, embroidery, garments (includingknit gloves of the 15th century, if memory serves, and shoes withcork soles) a full Landesknecht uniform - the color pictures areglorious - 16th century shirts, and all kinds of neat stuff.This is a fun book, especially if you are interested in clothingconstruction.

I would also recommend Paul Norlund Meddelelser Om Gronland (Copenhagen, 1924)(or in English The Buried Norsemen at Herjolfsnes). It has excellent patterns,and comparisons of the different finds at Herjolfsnes (Greenland) and a gooddiscussion of fibers, seams, finishing, mending, etc. There are flatpatterns as well as sketches of the garments, and illustrations from ms.with similar garments. Should be available through inter-library loan.

Unto the good gentles of the Rialto does Lord Hossein AliQomi send greetings and prayers for the blessings of Allah.

A few days ago Lord Arval enquired as to documentation ofperiod sumptuary laws. The following holds true forEngland. The situation on the continent is somewhat morecomplex and, frankly, I am not sufficiently familiar withFrench and Italian/Imperial legislation to commentintelligently on the development of sumptuary law there.

The first record of sumptuary legislation is an ordinanceof the City of London in 1281, regulating apparel ofworkingmen, particularly when apparel was provided as apart of wages. This may have arisen from a wage/price-control impulse (the last two decades of the 13th century doexhibit wage inflationary tendencies), or from imitation ofcontinental trends (e.g., the first evidences of sumptuarylegislation in Italy, Spain and France date from thethirteenth century -- the reigns of Frederick II, James I,and Philip IV, respectively).

The next sumptuary-legal activity is associated with theparliament of 1309 in the reign of Edward II. Edwardissued a proclamation against "outrageous" consumption ofmeats and fine dishes by the great houses of the realm;however, parliament did not see fit to address the royalconcern with legislation.

The reign of Edward III provides the first nationalsumptuary legislation on record. Statutes were passed inthe parliaments of 1336 and 1337 (I don't remember thecitations, but they can be looked-up in _Statutes of theRealm_, where one can also find texts of the acts). The1336 act prohibited various "luxurious" dining practices.The 1337 act dealt with furs, limiting the wearing thereofto persons of gentle birth (or persons with annual incomesof 100 pounds or more). There is some reason to believethat the thrust of this legislation was anti-inflationary andconservationist, but there is also very little evidence thatthe act was enforced. It seems not to have been an attemptto distinguish by apparel betters-by-birth from betters-by-income. The parliament of 1363 passed an actregulating both apparel and consumption of foodstuffs.However, it is clear that the act had two objectives:protectionism (e.g., only members of the royal familycould wear cloth of non-English manufacture -- Flemishweavers were drawing specie out of the English economyhand over fist in the decade and a half after the plague)and an anti-inflationary wage policy (e.g., regulating thepayment of wages in apparel and foodstuffs to evade strictwage controls adopted after the plague when the labormarket contracted so violently). It is also worth notingthat the act amended the act of 1337 to reduce the thresholdfor permissible wearing of furs to any non-peasant withan annual income of 40 shillings or greater. Thelegislation has a profoundly anti-foreign flavor and it isworth noting that it comes at the end of a decade in whichthe first Act of Treasons (1352) and the Statute ofPraemunire (1353) were adopted and in which the Englishgovernment strove for something like autarky in domesticmarkets (autarky is probably too strong a term -- at least"import isolationism").

The next sumptuary legislation comes in the reign ofHenry VI in the parliament of 1444. This act regulatedapparel for husbandry servants when such apparel was apart of wages. This is straightforward wage-controllegislation.

The last English medieval sumptuary law was that ofEdward IV, passed by parliament in 1462 (3 Edw. IV. c. 5 --that's the only cite from the _Statutes of the Realm_ whichI recall intact). This act did attempt to regulate apparel byrank for all subjects. The act is quirky, particularly giventhe appearance of parliamentary rather than royalinitiative in its proposal. Edward was rather morepreoccupied with the campaign in the north in 1462 thanhe was with the parliament and, thus, there wassignificantly less royal control exercised over legislation.The act does appear to be an attempt to distinguish subjectsby rank through regulation of apparel, although there arealso clear wage-control implications to the legislation.What is probably more significant is that there are norecorded cases of prosecutions under the act, and thecalendars of courts for the reigns of Edward IV andRichard III are largely extant.

To summarize, there seems to be little evidence from theEnglish case for the argument that sumptuary laws wereaimed at codifying class differences as a result of somegeneral disparity between income and rank. The Englishacts -- with the exception of the act of 1462 (and eventhere the case can be provisionally made) -- were anti-inflationary, wage-control, and protectionist in theirintents.

There is really little good literature on English sumptuarylaws. F. Baldwin's _Sumptuary Legislation and PersonalRegulation in England_ (1926) is virtually the onlysystematic work. There are references to the acts invarious economic histories of the middle ages, but the onlyway other than Baldwin of which I am aware to familiarizeoneself with these acts is to read through _Statutes of theRealm_.

If anyone has better information, I would be veryinterested in hearing about it.

Unto the good gentles of the Rialto does Lord Hossein AliQomi send greetings and prayers for the blessings of Allah.

Lady Alison MacDermot recently wrote:

> Sumptuary laws: My last post wasn't very clear; I > apologize. Sumptuary laws were usually not in effect at > any given time and given location. However, I took an > EKU course a few years ago where the instructor was able> to document several sumptuary laws for each century > after 1100. This tells me that our period exemplars (at > least the late period ones) felt that you should show your > rank on your sleeve, so to speak, and occasionally felt > strongly enough about it to pass laws enforcing that > belief.

I mean no offense, my lady, but that is precisely the wronginference from the documentary record for England.

Perhaps I was unclear in my previous posting. A carefulexamination of the evidence suggests: All the Englishnational sumptuary legislation of the middle ages hadeconomic purposes. The two most important of thesepurposes were (1) control of wages (and resulting wageinflation) in periods of labor market constriction and (2)protection of English manufactures against foreigncompetition in the domestic market (the drivingmotivation here was retarding the movement of speciefrom England to the continent). This is clear from thelegislation itself: the vast majority of regulationsregarding apparel were not of "bourgeois," as you suggest,but of workingmen, for whom the partial payment ofwages in apparel was an attempt to evade wage controllegislation. The case is even more strongly made whenyou graph incidence of sumptuary legislation againstvariation in wage rates -- the legislation occurs only inresponse to wage-inflationary pressures (J. ThoroldRogers' _Six Centuries of Work and Wages_ [London, 1884]and J. Hatcher's _Plague, Population, and the EnglishEconomy, 1348-1530_ [London, 1977] are useful in makingthis point). There is a less strong statistical relationshipbetween variation in fabric imports and such legislation[good summaries of the issues involved can be found in J.H.Munro's _Wool, Cloth, and Gold: The Struggle for Bullion inthe Anglo-Burgundian Trade, 1340-1478_ (Toronto, 1973), E.Power's _The Wool Trade in English History_ (Oxford, 1941),T.H. Lloyd's _The English Wool Trade in the Middle Ages_(Cambridge, 1977), E.M. Crus-Wilson and O. Coleman's_England's Export Trade, 1275-1547_ (Oxford, 1963), and A.Hanham's "Foreign Exchange and the English woolmerchant in the late fifteenth century," _Bulletin of theInstitute of Historical Research_, xliv, 1973].

This legislation had very little to do with "showing yourrank on your sleeve" and a great deal to do with primitiveattempts at state intervention in economic processes.Inflation and specie depletion were among the mostcritical problems facing the late medieval Englisheconomy and sumptuary laws were one relatively minorattempt to bolster other state policies aimed controllingboth.

It is not the case that:

> These laws usually didn't work for the same reason> that the SCA uses accessory-type regalia. In a given > political system, money usually goes hand in hand with > power. Most sumptuary laws were decreed when this was > no longer the case: that is, when a wealthy merchant > class emerged, so there was a group of people with tons o'> moolah but no place in the ruling hierarchy. (Where > these bourgeois rulers did have influence--the guilds--> there was considerable pomp and circumstance.) The > nobles felt it necessary to prevent the bourgeoisie from > looking like nobles; ergo, sumptuary laws. However, since> money usually creates its own power, these laws were > broken right and left.

These laws were never intended to provide easily visiblerank distinctions (3 Edw. IV. c. 5 [1462] may be anexception, but the evidence is not very strong). Theyfailed because the general policy of wage control in theface of serious labor market fluctuation -- of which theywere a part -- was a dismal failure. The centralized statebureaucracy necessary for economic intervention on thatscale simply did not exist for a medieval Englishgovernment.

I do not mean to belabor the point. The problem is theinference from a supposed model of medieval practice toSCA practice. If we are going to rest analysis of practicesin the Society on analogies to period practices, then wemust pay rather more careful attention to the documentaryrecord and professional scholarship on these issues. Isuspect that SCA sumptuary quasi-laws have rather more todo with modern rank-status attitudes (or, more properly,with modern, half-thought-out speculations about whatmedieval attitudes might have been, dressed-over with areaction to modern egalitarianism, bureaucratism, andcontradictory conspicuous consumption values) thananything analogous in the middle ages (after all, we arenot primarily a land-wealth based political economy andthat is significantly great a difference to make analogizinga questionable enterprise in the first place). Medievaleconomic legislation is rather more complex than theanalogy would otherwise suggest.

Perhaps my curmudgeon button has been over-hardpushed, but one does get a little tired of the SCA's common_Reader's Digest_ approach to medieval history when awealth of good, professional scholarship on the relevantissues exists in any decent research library. Often what wecall "period" in reasoning about SCA practices is anamalgam of modern, mundane attitudes with a superficialsurvey of the historical record. The most common formthis takes is the "somebody, somewhere in period did it thisway, so let's do it this way" kind of reasoning whichutterly ignores the evidence about real patterns oftechnology-transfer in the middle ages. The suggestionthat rank-status attitudes in the middle ages werecomparable to those of modern persons in the SCA is asimilar kind of error -- perhaps medieval persons weregenuinely different from modern persons in more waysthan clothing and culinary habits (they did, after all, growup in a radically different society). That medieval personsdid have deeply felt rank-status attitudes is entirely likely,but what those attitudes were is a matter for research, notblithe speculation.

Again, I mean no offense, Lady Alison; you have beenmerely the proximate occasion of a more general peeve Ihave about how people reason from medieval to SCApractice.

I muist say that I disagree, and so does Elizabeth b. Hurlock, author ofthe article "Sumptuary Law" in the book _Dress, Adornment and the Social Order_ (John Wiley & Sons, 1965). It appears to be a scholarly work; theeditors are at the University of Wisconsin and at Michigan State.

She writes:

"Sumptuary laws were used primarily to preserve class distinctions. When members of the nobility found their position of supremacy encroached upon by the lower classes who had attained wealth, they passed laws to restorethe respect for the inequality of ranks which had previously existed...

"Sumptuary laws were often used as a means of inducing people to save money...it was necessary to take precautions lest the mad extravaganceof the people, and their senseless sacrifices on clothing and other luxuries,lead the country into bankruptcy. ...

"From an economic point of view, sumptuary laws were very valuable as ameans of encouraging domestic trade...An excellent example of this occurredduring the sixteenth century when velvet caps, made from material comingfrom Italy and France, were the stylish headgear for men. To encouragehome production, England passed a law compelling all persons over six yearsof age, except those of high position, to wear woolen caps, made in England,on Sundays and all holy days..."

From this, we can see that sumptuary laws were multipurpose: they served as trade barriers, but also as social significators (else why the exceptionfor "those of high position" in the law cited in paragraph 3?). Economicreasons were important, but were far from being the only reasons forthese laws.

Unfortunately, my library (as you can probably guess from the header) is notparticularly strong on books on clothing theory. Otherwise, I would haveposted more support for my argument. I do resent, however, the implicationthat I was doing some off-the-cuff theorizing when I had, in fact, donesome research in sources other than Reader's Digest.

By the way: I just finished a book called "On Human Finery", by Quentin Bell.There's some very interesting work on how a particular time's opinion onwhat's beautiful influences their perceptions of the clothing of other eras.

Codpieces were normally a fairly straight forward (and upward pointing...)affair. Not much larger than was needed to cover the slit in the trunkhoseor pluderhosen, plus a little for ego.

Fitting one to yourself is fairly simple, most start about at the bottom ofa modern fly and end just below the edge of the accompanying doublet.Usually 8-9 inches along the side next to the body with a projection stickingout and up for two to four inches on the average in the front. Width rangedfrom 3 to 5 inches on the side nearest the body.

Extravagant codpieces, the Landsknecht may have the prize for those... I have seen prints of codpieces that were roughly half catalopes withslashes and puffs of material sticking out, as well as what look like abow extending almost nine inches to either side of the codpiece. (Half to 3/4 the width of the leg)

Such a bow would have to be made of a rather stiff fabric or a starchedone. It almost blends with the outfits it is worn with... :) (The late period floor length pluderhosen)

Of course for really silly, you can do what a few gentles in this areahave been reported to do... Put a squeek toy in the codpiece...Or even better all but one of them... :)

John McGuire Of course I wear a codpiece, no self respecting gentleman would go out in pluderhosen without one! Otherwise your underwear shows...

Look for loosely woven fabrics. Cotton broadcloth seems to be an SCAstandard, but is not period and is much hotter than a more looselywoven fabric. For a Northern Europe persona you want something that lookslike and works like linen, hemp, or nettle. I have found cotton/linenand cotton/ramie blends. Ramie is a popular fiber lately and seemscheaper than linen, it is a type of stingless nettle and a bastfiber like linen. These dont feel damp like cotton will.

Lightweight, loosely woven summer or tropic weight wool is saidto be good. I wore a wool/silk hangerrock over a cotton/ramieand was quite comfortable.

Silk is nice, but look for a loosely woven fabic like raw silk.

> Viking dresses (what *is* the proper name for the ones that fasten at the shoulders and have a flap fore and aft?

It is called a peplos. See CA #59 for more info. It may or may not havethe overfold. If it more fitted and has straps over the shoulderit becomes the Viking apron dress or hangerrock. I liked the look ofthe Madras plaid peplos that many ladies were wearing even thoughthey were perhaps not quite the correct plaid.

<adelekta@kentvm.kent.edu> wrote:>00kacohn@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:> >>-- What sort of garb works best for hot, humid weather?

Woad? ;-)

>On those days when I wore garb that was not 100% cotton, I made sure to wear a>cotton gauze chemise underneath...it *really* helped. I've heard that linen is>also an excellent fabric for comfortable hot-weather underclothing.

It has been my experience at other events of a more reenactment naturethat linen is *very* good for keeping cool as long as it is a lightweight linen. Linen can also be very *warm* when the weight is heavier.Linen wicks moisture away from the body and allows it to evaporate quickly(especially loose weaves). I have found that cotton tends to keepmoisture in. I know some people find a moist towel or veil coolingbut that's different from body moisture. ;-)> >About allergies...I have noticed that going about with my face veiled has been>a very big help in preventing allergy attacks...and it's an especially good>thing for filtering out the dust.

Thanks!This is a good tip. I had to go to the hospital Thursday morningbecause of a asthma attack. My great Pensic adventure :-(. Maybe I should write it up in rhyme? ;-)

, , Thore de Bethume asks of information on 14th/15th century spanishcostume. A wonderful book titled _Hispanic_Costume:__1480_-_1530_,which was published by the Hispanic Society of America (Boston). Afriend of mine tells me it's available from Medieval Miscellania.

I own a copy myself. It tells of the different garments of the timesand accessories. (boots, cloaks, garters, etc.) If he's not interestedin reading it (lots of fun) he might borrow someone's copy and just look at pictures to see what he may copy. Any good costumer would beable to help him make a pattern for himself.

If your friend is already an accomplished costumer, he may be interestedin a book that was created by a 16th century tailor that actually haspatterns. Of course those patterns are for a different width of fabric than is sold presently, and they are specific to who the tailor made the cloths for, so he'd have to fit the pattern to himself. If you areinterested in the name of that book, I will ask my friend tonight, sinceshe owns it.

Other ways to just find pictures is to go to an art library. If they havea book on the El Prado (in Madrid), that museum has many paintings fromthe 15th and 16th centuries. It's just absolutely fabulous. Also, if hecan find names of artists who were spanish or worked in spain at that time, he may have good luck in finding books on their works or that contain their works.

A laurel here in the Debatable Lands collects postcards of different pieces of art from her chosen area of focus. That would also be fun todo.

I hope this helps your friend, and I hope others here found thisinteresting.

> Thore de Bethume asks of information on 14th/15th century spanish>costume. A wonderful book titled _Hispanic_Costume:__1480_-_1530_,>which was published by the Hispanic Society of America (Boston). A>friend of mine tells me it's available from Medieval Miscellania.

It is almost certainly available cheaper from the Hispanic Societydirectly. And if you're in the New York metropolitan area, you shouldgo visit their museum. They have lots of interesting little things intheir gift shop, at absurdly low prices (well, I haven't been therefor 6 or 7 years -- but they were still selling postcards for a nickelthen....) -- --Mike Bergman Voice: (617) 271-0230

There have been a number of postings in the last week or so asking where to find fourteenth and fifteenth century plaque belts.I make plaque belts of various types, so I have emailed many of the posters. There was enough interest that it was suggested that I post my address. Most of my belts are sold in kit form, and include the basic metal parts- plates, plaques, and fasteningmachanism. The plaques are usually pewter, in shapes such asfleur-de-lis and quatrefoils. Email me for more information.

Fiametta mentions that she wishes 'scrap' dresses' were period for her.

In the excellent _Renaissance Dress in Italy 1400-1500_ by JacquelineHerald and part of 'The History of Dress Series' published by HumanitiesPress in the USA (mailing address Humanities Press Inc. AtlanticHighlands, New Jersey 07716) ISBN 0 391 02362 4...... anyway, there ismention of 'lista' or applique strips of fabric that create the illusionof a striped weave, as seen in the portrait of Beatrice d'Este (thesister that did not carry a knife). A portrait by Raphael, believedto be of her sister Isabella (who did carry a knife, but did not wearoiled linen raincoats) shows her in a gown constructed of what appearsto be a geometric patchwork (most likely lots of liste on a solid ground). These portraits are from 1480 on.

Also, from about 1440 some portraits by Pisanello show men in shortgowns with rather elaborate edges, constructed of attached fabric piecespinked and cut on the edges to resemblefeathers. One illustration shows such thick edging that the hem of thegown rather resembles a short set of Angora chaps.

So, although the concept of 'patchwork' gowns made of random shapesmight not be appropriate, a geometric approach could prove bothentertaining to design and beautiful to wear.

> Recently I came out of a silent auction with a wool tunic, beautifully> made from a rather substantial fabric, but which, when I put it on,> only reached my knees. It would be perfect for a man, but I am trying> to figure out how my persona could wear such a garment. My persona> is Irish, but with no determined period in time as yet.> Could the tunic be worn with leg wraps or some sort of pants? Or> could it be worn over a dress or skirt? Does anyone have any good> ideas?

I would wear it over a longer t-tunic-like dress. I've seen a lot of pictures of medieval people wearing this, & I think it looks snazzy.

STEWARTL@wood-emh1.ARmy.MIL (LOU STEWART) writes:>Recently I came out of a silent auction with a wool tunic, beautifully>made from a rather substantial fabric, but which, when I put it on,>only reached my knees. It would be perfect for a man, but I am trying>to figure out how my persona could wear such a garment. My persona>is Irish, but with no determined period in time as yet.>Could the tunic be worn with leg wraps or some sort of pants? Or>could it be worn over a dress or skirt? Does anyone have any good>ideas?>Luigsech ni Ifearnain, Calanais Nuadh, Calontir>

One of our members (who has an welsh persona) said that it could beworn over a skirt or full dress as an overdress. Put a girdle around yourwaist and it should look fine. She also said it would be mid period (pre-ren).Hope that helps :)

prrthead@unm.edu (Tassach MacTearlach) wrote:> Laurie Brandt <rzex60@email.mot.com> wrote:> >> >I am in the process of making a new bell or spanish farthingale and I need> >a supply of hoop wire in Austin Tx if possible, if not mail order> >Thanks> >Pegasus> > The good lady, Jehanne, who is teaching me to sew says that brick bands are > very useful for making hoop skirts. Brick bands are those steel bands that> are used to hold bundles of bricks together; they can be had for no cost> by visiting a construction site.> -- WHY Hoop wire,For one thing, it is designed for that reason - to make dress hoops. It is1/2 inch in width, the edges are of spring steel, and it is covered eitherin buckram or a plastic fabric. You can sew down the middle of it or slideit in to a one inch cassing. It will allow you to sit and even drive amotor vehicle, in my case, a Mustang II Mach I hatchback, and not get hitin the nose with your skirts. Brick band are better the hula hoops, but notas good as hoop wire.Pegasus Devona

DeePe <100545.3105@CompuServe.COM> says:>I seek advice from anyone who has experience with historical>costume. Some text books indicate that some historical costume is>not wearable today due the weight, tightness and sheer disccomfort>of the garments. Men's high collars, women's corsets and crinolines>for example. On the other hand people did wear these things and they >managed.>>Any comments on the practical experiences of wearing or making >historical costume ?

I've worn historical costume from Ancient Greece to modern day; some ofit is easier to wear than others (a Greek chiton, for example, ismuch easier than anything with a corset), but by and large I've foundthat as long as I base my designs on reality (vs. fantasy), any periodcan be eminently wearable. What the wearer of the garb must rememberis that the people who wore the [corset/crinoline/high collar/big hat/hobble skirt/etc.] were wearing their everyday clothes, *not* a COSTUME.If the mindset of the day says that women must have a wasp waist ora really big butt (i.e. bustle) or an S-shaped figure (Edwardian) orhips for miles (panniers) or whatever, then that's what they'll do --although the lower classes tended to blow off a lot of artifice simplybecause it wasn't practical. Much of the excesses you see in the popularmedia of the day portrayed the upper classes (just like our fashion magazines today: could *you* afford to pay $800 for a white cottonbutton-down?), so the popular assumption that *everyone* dressed that wayin period is simply wrong. In short, while the excesses of period dressmay be uncomfortable to the point of impossibility, *everyday* dress from any period is do-able. (And, for the record, I think it's a shamethat corsets have gone the way of all flesh; they're actually quitecomfortable *when properly fitted* and allow you to relax and not haveto constantly suck in your gut!)>>Are there any other places on the INTERNET where I can go for>help ?

Try the renfaire newsgroup (alt.renfiare?); the people who work at Renaissance fairs spend a lot of time in Elizabethan and/or Tudorcostume, and a lot of them also worked the Dickens Faire (earlyVictorian).

Greetings to the Rialto, and those who like 14th c. mercenaries ;>Being a 14th c. (former) mercenary, this is what I have found in germanculture ...For dress, a chemise, wams (german cotehardie, with buttons on thehips rather than sleeves, made of coarse linen or leather for themilitary class), over-wams (knee length, heraldically decorated), hood(buttoned or not buttoned), hose made of scarlach or leather, probablylow leather boots, a plated/studded leather belt to hang an armingsword, and dagger/pouch arrangement (french tended to wear the dagger/pouch in a provocative manner in the front, germans to the side), andlikely a cross of simple metals about the neck.For work and everyday use, replace the wams and over-wams with a kirtle,a full sleeved, fit to the waist tunic of about knee length (some thingsnever change over the centuries), but keep the hose, hood, cross, belt,and so on.Quick note about the arming sword ... most 14c. soldiers fought withdecent sized swords (some 2 handed), shields, etc. but they tended towear an arming sword at their belt, which was a simple, slightly shortsword that hung perpendicular to the belt. It's shown in many brassesand pictures of the time.If you'd like some more detailed information, feel free to mail medirectly.Humbly,Brand Thorwaldsen14th c. fellowbrand@mcmi.com

Aleksandr the Traveller writes:>Additionally, there was in the real MA, little concern among the wealthy for >durability in most fabric - they were concerned with appearances.

I'm not sure that that was the case. I have a book called _Hispanic Costume: 1480-1530_ and one of the things it talks about is how meticulously the catholic prince's clothing was kept. Underclothes such as hose and shifts were replaced on a frequent basis (I believe he had an allotment of 10 new hosen per week,) but the clothing was meticulously kept, I can only guess to both keep up the appearance and to make it last.

I gather from others, although I have no documentation to quote, that even the nobility and the rich did not have the quantity of clothing that we do today. They had to take care of it and make it last. Ohh, that reminds me of _The Paston Letters_ where John Paston's wife talkes about sending one of the sons money for a new christmas suit of cloths. But that ssemed to be the only new suit of cloths for that year. I might be misremembering. Help anyone?

Take 60" wide cloth, twice the measure from waist to floor, plus 4 inchesfor hem and casing. Run side seams. Make a hem and a drawstring casingat the waist. (This is also good expanding maternity garb)

Quick and easy Hat:

Take a circle of fabric (at least 24" across) and run a gathering stitchalong the edge. Slip stitch or zigzag a band cut to measure your friend'shead. (24" is good generic size)

Quick and easy hat II:

Cut 4 circles of cloth 18" in diameter. Cut 3 into doughnuts of cloth,making a hole big enough for friend's head. Sew intact circle to donut,sew 2 donuts together. Sew crown (intact) to brim. A slip-stitchedcasing around the raw interior edge makes this a lot more comfy. Thecutting and sewing takes about 1/2 an hour.

Zdrastvuy! To all on the rialto, from Tatiana Nikonovna, I am in quest of information on houpelandes. A friend is making one and has some questions that I could not answer, as I am knowledgable primarily in Russian garb. Specifically what she needs to know is:were houpelandes decorated in any way, such as beading or embroidery. Any sources you can point us to would be greatly appreciated.

Spaciba!Tatiana Nikonovna,Calontir

P.S. It is a man's houpelande, of France, if that makes any difference

The ornamented houppelande: A qualified "yes". My main area of research is High Medieval embroidery. Here's what I know:

1) 50 years before the houppelande turned the fashion world onits ear, English and French nobles were wearing elaboratelyembroidered mantles and surcotes. Said garments are specificallydescribed as embroidered in Wardrobe inventories, and contemporarypictorial evidence suggests that a lot of the embroidery covered the entire garment; a design with twining vines enclosing animals,objects, and/or monsters was quite popular.

2) There are several portraits of Philip the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, wearing a houppelande decorated with the very same twining-vines pattern, enclosing his badge, a wood plane. The design isin gold, highly consistent with the 14th c. examples.

However,

3) The consensus of several researchers is that the English embroideryindustry took a header around 1400, due (some suggest) to the increasing skill of the Italian weavers in producing highly ornamental cloth. It is certainly true that the textiles of theperiod are stunning.

My guess: 15th c. pictorial evidence is inconclusive; the ornaments on most decorated houppelandes (for example, those on the noblesin the _Tres Riches Heurs_) are regular repeats, which could easily be reproduced by weaving. Equally true, however, is that the same sources show what must be embroidered clothing; two ofthe noble servitors in the January page of the Tres Riches Heurswear hosen with ornamental bands that I believe to be embroidered.My gut says that houppelandes could have been ornamented either by use of brocaded cloth or of embroidery, but that the embroiderybecame rarer as the cost differential continued to increase.

: Does anyone out there know if pointes were worn during the 1360's, and if : they were, were they separate legged or one-piece? And were they attached : to tunics(or cotehardies) or did they use a belt/garter. I am confused by : the things and would like to be enlightened.

I am not sure about pointes, but could you mean points? These were cords, often metal tipped, used to secure clothing. They were often used to tie pants to a doublet, secure the bottoms of pants legs or hold up tall boot tops. They are best known in the 16th & 17th century, but I suspect such a simple idea must have been around long before that.

Empire waisted dresses, by which I assume you mean any dress with awaist just below bust level, are first seen in classical times, graecoroman. However they aren't cut that way, since gowns at this time arejust tubes, and they simply chose to belt them this high.

A dress cut with a high waist appears in most of Europe in the 1400s. At first they were full gowns, called houpplandes in Wester Europe, witha belt worn high (and sometimes not, depends on who, what when or where).By the second half of the century there is some indication that the gown wasactually cut with a high waist seam.

The Italians wore them a little longer than France, England, and the lowcountries. They appear as late as 1500 or so in Venice, while the morefitting dresses were being worn after about 1480. (The Italians thought,as usual, they were being Roman.) By the early 1500's the high waist was out (except for pregnant women--which is a whole nother story.)until the end of the 1700's.

All this is very general of course. If you could be more specific as totime and place, it would be a big help.

(And if you're using Peacock's gawdawful book, he has no idea what he's doing when he draws women in the 1100 and 1200's with high waists.)

>Can anyone help me with information about empire-waist dresses? More>specifically, where did they originate? During what period(s) did they>become popular?> BJ

Audelindis pretty much said it all, although I'd like to add that theterm "empire waist" was coined, not surprisingly, during the Empireperiod in France (i.e. turn of the 19th century -- Napoleon and thoseguys). Frenchwomen (or their dressmakers, anyway), adopted a styleof dress modelled after the Roman Empire: snug bodices ending justunder the bust with long, full, tubular skirts to give the impressionof a column.

For a fairly nice set of patterns for a variety of late period codpieceslook for Janet Arnold's Pattterns of Fashion. It is a large brown coveredpaperback book that shows pictures of the codpieces and patterns for themdrawn from a collection of outfits.

Margritte (margritt@mindspring.com) asked several questions about Norman gowns. I have answered the ones I feel qualified to address.

>- The fabric I have is a medium brown wool-blend. I don't know what the>other materials are, or in what proportions they appear. It is so finely>woven that I can see my hand through it if it is held up to the light. It>looks very close to what I have seen of hand-woven fabrics. Is this an>appropriate fabric for the overdress?

As with all textile choices, much depends on the era and social status you are aiming to recreate. Plain brown wool suggests everyday or work wear. If the weave is fine and the persona is noble, perhaps the lady is trying to look inconspicuous by wearing it. You don't mention the texture of the weave; tabby weaves and variants of 2/1 twills were the most popular weaves in the Norman period in England, although other weaves were not uncommon.

>- Recently, Iıve come across several references to fabric (particularly>wools) being felted. But surely all fabric wasnıt felted, was it?

Absolutely not. (You can't felt linen, for example.) But the answer is a little more complicated than that, of course. Fulling and teaseling became the standard way to treat high-quality garment textiles in northwest Europe by the middle of the thirteenth century, but other types of wool textiles were not fulled in the same manner, and it would be hard to argue for a unified industrial fulling standard in England before that time.

(Warning: The following will probably only make sense to fiber freaks!) In the Norman period an interesting hybrid wool textile arose: the 2/1 twill with worsted warp and woolen weft. In this weave the long floats of the warp were on the side regarded as the right side, and the long floats of the weft were on the side regarded as the wrong side. The friction and pressure of wearing caused the softer, fluffier weft threads to felt somewhat. The visual effect of this was that the outside of the wool garment would appear to have a distinct, unfelted twill weave, while the inside would appear fuzzy and indistinct.

>- In general, I pre-wash all my fabrics in hot water, and dry them on the>hottest setting, figuring that if I donıt ruin them by this treatment,>theyıll be OK for future mistakes. But I _really_ donıt want to ruin this>fabric. Should I: A) plan on drycleaning; B) try hot-washing a small>square of it to see how it does; or C) plan on spot cleaning and airing>it?

Much depends on the textile you have purchased. Worsteds are much less prone to shrinking and felting than woolens due to the way the yarns are spun. Some worsteds can be safely washed on the wool setting of a clothes washer (i.e., cold water, short rinse and soak). If you think spot-cleaning is the way you want to go, test the color by spot-cleaning a small area *before* you make the garment. If there is no discernible color change, remember which cleaner you used and don't switch brands!

If you wear a wool gown over a linen undergarment (or even a cotton one), and are careful not to spill things on it, you ought not need to clean it much.

>- I've heard that period looms were rather narrow (about 30-40").

Much depends, again, on the period and place you are examining. Richard I of England set a standard for cloth widths that was much closer to 27", and many finds support the notion of a fairly narrow, one-person loom. On the other hand, the broadloom, which was wide enough for two men to weave at side by side, is believed to have been invented by the mid-thirteenth century, in the Low Countries. On Cariadoc's third hand, fourteenth-century Italian silks were very narrow--more like 18" wide.

>Should I>cut my 60" fabric into strips for my dress?

No need: just make sure that none of your garment pieces is wider than the width you decide the loom was.

>This would presumably give me>one strip for the center of the dress, and then one strip for each arm,>and a gore on each side. Does this sound like the proper way to ³build²>it?

I don't know. To my knowledge, there are no Norman gowns extant for us to examine. (I have heard there is a northern England graveyard from this period that is being excavated, and that many whole garments have been found there, but I have seen nothing in print about it yet.) But except for the fact that you haven't mentioned center gores, it's not far from both earlier (tenth-century Hedeby) and later (Greenland and Bocksten) gown construction.

The best SCA work I have seen written on Norman clothing construction is the article on the bliaut in a recent _T.I._ by Lady Rowena le Serjeant.

>- What treatment is used on hems? Should I double-roll it and>double-stitch it like I do on most of my garb, or is this too blatantly>non-period?

Absolutely not; double-rolled hems go back much farther than the Normans in England. However, in the period I study (ninth to eleventh century Viking) the single roll hem is more common for wools, unless they are very fine. I'm not sure what a double-stitch is, though.

>What about a facing for the neck? Or should I turn it under>and hem it, too?

The earliest things I know of that are thought to have been neck facings (in the modern sense) are the fourteenth-century ones from the Museum of London book. However, it is also possible that one of the Oseberg textile fragments (ninth century) is an oval neck facing.

Other possibilities include lining the garment (in which case the lining and the outside textile become each others' finishings at the neckline) or encasing the raw cut edge of the neckline in a strip of silk, as was done in the Viking Age. If you use the silk strip, be sure to cut it on the straight grain, not the bias.

>If I plan to embroider the edges, should I try to hide>the back side of the stitching that might be visible if I make large>"drapey" sleeves? Does this mean I need facings for the sleeves, too?

This is another problem that can be solved by lining the gown. Or you could just line the sleeves without lining the rest of the garment.

>And the Underdress:>- Is linen a good material for the underdress?

Yes. I regard it as the best material to put next to the skin. It will be cool or warm as you need it to be, it will absorb sweat and keep it away from your expensive overgarment, and the more you wash it the softer it gets (unless you insist on ironing it!).

>- Should the skirt be as full as the skirt of the overdress. That is, do I>need to put gores in it as well?

I find it constricting to have an underdress that is a lot narrower than the overdress. But you could use gores narrower than those on your overdress and still get an underdress that won't restrict you.

>- What should I use for the thread? Wool yarn? DMC floss? Silk floss? What>ply? What colors were commonly used?

If you decide to dress up the garment, silk floss would be appropriate. If you can get reeled single-ply silk, go for it! If you want to dress it down (i.e., make it look like a workday kind of gown), use wool, 2-ply. After all this work toward greater authenticity, though, you probably shouldn't muck up the work with cotton floss.

A great many colors were achievable, more or less, with period dyes. Seek out a dyer in your part of the world and ask to look at samples; the dyer will be happy that you expressed interest, and you will know what shades are best for your purpose.

<chandra@SEDS.LPL.Arizona.EDU> writes: > I am thinking of reproducing a 16th century dress for an A&S > competition. The dress in question (from Arnold's Patterns of Fashion) > is decorated with strips of velvet embroidered with gold thread. > However, I am not inclined to spend time embroidering 2 yards of velvet. > My question is this: could I use the type ofmodern velvet that has > designs in glitter glued on it?

I don't think that the look would be the same. Even gilt does not look like glitter.

>I know that it would look fine, but is > this type of fabric period?

Possibly (depending on the decorative pattern), but more likely not. They did have a variety of patterned and stamped velvets, but were not synthetic fabrics. Cotton velvets actually look more like period silk velvets. Sometimes the cotton ones look even better than modern silk velvets (because of the way they are woven).

>Would I be judged down for using it? Probably. I would suggest changing that particular decorative technique with another period technique that you can or are willing to reproduce. Try Elizabeth's Wardrobe Unlock'd by Janet Arnold (there are some more very good detailed examples...). Perhaps someone in your area has a copy that they will let you look at if you don't have a copy yourself.

When I am judging, I do usually take into account both fabric and color choices. In general it seems sad when people put a LOT of effort and money into something that could have been done easier/cheaper/faster using more authentic techniques and materials.

>> A friend has asked me to post a request for information on early period >> Irish women's costume. She would like to make a complete outfit >> including leine(spelling unknown), undergown, bratte, shoes, head-dress >> (if any), embroidery or other decoration, accessories, belt, etc.

>the best authority is McClintock, *Old Irish and Highland Dress*> (i believe the dewey decimal to be 391.0942 M12o, i was looking at it> last night)

>McClintock has a lot of good pictures and analysis of same.

Another Irish Costuming source:"Dress in Ireland" by Mairead Dunlevy, published by Holmes & Meier,1989, New York, ISBN 0-8419-1269-6

The bio of the author says she is responsible for the glass, textilesand ceramics sections of the National Museum in Ireland. Shementions the McClintock book in her forward as well as some othersources. It has pictures of some surviving costumes, including a pairof shoes and some dresses. The book is in hardcover. I got the bookfrom Amazon Drygoods in Davenport, Iowa. I think it was about $40.

In article <4jbk7i$j15@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>,Richard M. Albrecht <rmalbrec@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:> Greetings All, Ave!>> I am having some troubles researching a piece of garb and would>appreciate some help from the whole of The Society. I need>bibliographical refences and examples for a chaperons (capelets with>hoods) that open in the front, preferably using buttons as a closure. >John peacock shows one on page #14 of his book "Costume 1066-1990's">(second fellow from the left) but fails to tells us where He is pulling>this from. I am hoping to use the design for some Pennsic garb, but>accuracy is of chief importance.>> Also while on this topic is there any historical precidence for>hoodless chaperons?

The chaperon (hooded capelet) appears in the 14th century; look for 14th and 15th century art books. By a hoodless chaperon I assume you mean a short hoodless cape? Short capes existed, but the only example I can think of offhand of a short fitted shoulder-cape is the German-area "goller", which was worn by women to cover the low necklines of their gowns in cold weather (see Kohler). Generally, I believe the capelet was just a long hood that kept the rain out of the back of your neck.

I find that a simple hood with a 6-inch capelet tucked under my winter coat is perfect for snow shoveling--the hood keeps my ears warm while letting out excess heat, and the caplet keeps the back of my neck warm. Much better than a hood attached to the coat, for some reason.

> In article <bjm10-1005961136300001@potato.cit.cornell.edu>, bjm10@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) says:> >> >A question that my wife asked me, and many other ladies have posed is what> >was done with skirt edges--that is, were they constantly carried up? Were> >they actually short enough to not hit the ground?> > In a previous incarnation, before I Saw The Light, I was acquainted with early period western garb. If I remember right, even ladies of substance had working kirtles for the dirty stuff around the house (preparing medicines, inventorying the pantry, dusty jobs but not necessarily physically demanding) and kept the nice stuff for when someone was around to impress. Since fine fabrics were so expensive and rare, they would often sew a wide band of less expensive but still fine material to the hem of the overskirt, protecting it from a lot of the dirt. these bands were about 5-8 inches wide and contrasted or didn't, ladies' choice.

also, they held up the overskirt to show off the underskirt, which was usually of much finer (expensive) fabric than the overskirt. That's why there was only enough to make an underskirt, not the flowing overdress.

Sadira, who is MUCH more comfortable dressed as a lady should, in trousers

: In period, dagged fabric was more tightly beaten in the weaving process: than what is done by machine these days and didn't need edge finishes: when pinked or dagged (see the fragment of dagging in HMSO "Medieval: Textiles". I've finished dagged edges in three different ways, none of: which are (so far in my searchings) documentably period techniques*:??????I think in period, dags would have to have been woven *seprately* and not cut, only one weft skipped, and then the ends tied off. it makes for a very nice clean finish this way... And I have a hard time beliving that any amount of beating would keep it from fraying--perhaps not immediatly... but soon after. The only thing I can think of is that if they used wool, the fabric could be brushed, and then ends intertwined, to finish it all off.

: 2. Before cutting the dag pattern, travel over the proposed edge of: the dags with two journeys of dense zig-zag stitching with your: machine, either in matching or contrasting thread. Fray Check is a nice: reinforcement here.

: 3. Line your dagged edges with a contrasting color: e.g., if your: houppelande is black velveteen and your cotehardie underneath is white,: how about a nice deep red for a sleeve lining?

Learn the 'blanket embroidery stitch' or "whipstitch' the bottom edges, dampening, and rolling them under as you go along.

But I would still say that lining, is the the best way, and the easiest way of going about it. because you just stitch out the dags, Then tim them and trun them inside out.

An addition to Ciorstan's advice: a possible replacement for Fray-Chekmight be beeswax. I have information on some 14th-15th c. pieces of applique' which have traces of beeswax on the raw edges of the applique'd fabric. I doubt it would work for very fray-prone fabrics,but for something like a moderately well-felted wool, I bet it would.

sdavitt@ub.d.umn.edu (sarah davitt) writes: >>: In period, dagged fabric was more tightly beaten in the weaving process>: than what is done by machine these days and didn't need edge finishes>: when pinked or dagged (see the fragment of dagging in HMSO "Medieval>: Textiles". I've finished dagged edges in three different ways, none of>: which are (so far in my searchings) documentably period techniques*:>??????>I think in period, dags would have to have been woven *seprately* and

>not cut, only one weft skipped, and then the ends tied off. it makes for >a very nice clean finish this way... And I have a hard time beliving that >any amount of beating would keep it from fraying--perhaps not >immediatly... but soon after. The only thing I can think of is that if >they used wool, the fabric could be brushed, and then ends intertwined, >to finish it all off.

No, I'm afraid not. The sample of dagging in the book I quoted wasmerely cut. No edge finishes, no treatment of any kind other than,perhaps, some teasing to bring up the nap, and felting probably due tolong exposure to soil. A sample of one is small, but it is after all,primary and concrete evidence of no edge finishing whatsoever.

The method you propose would be good for weaving separate garters (andin fact the same book shows a method for doing so), however I cannotconceive at this point of writing how one would go about a curve for,example, oak-leaf dagging. Having grown up with a professional weaverof tapestries in the house, it would be IMHO mind-bogglingly difficultto weave an edge finish into a dagging pattern. On the other hand,could anyone of more weaving experience out there comment on this?

'Beating' refers to the physical action of pulling the reed back in theshed to 'beat' the weft into the cloth being formed. When done by hand,as opposed to the machines commonly in use in the twentieth century, itis easier to control the density of the fabric being woven. I suspectmodern machines don't beat fabric with the force and depth ofhand-looms due to the fact that less dense cloths are *cheaper* to makethan more tightly beaten cloths.

"Felt" is a non-woven fabric made (traditionally) of wool or (modernly) ofsynthetics, in which the fibers are mushed, smashed, and poundedtogether, until they are permanently stuck to one another. Felt can becut without coming apart. Traditionally, wool was used, because themicroscopic "scales" on the surface of the fibers lock up with each other.

"Brushing" is a finishing techinque, in which the completed fabric isbrushed with (traditionally) a teasel (which is part of a thistle-likeplant), so that tiny fibers are torn away from the fabric, and stick up.Brushed fabric feels fuzzy, and the fuzz is usually trimmed away. Brushing has pretty much no effect on the stability or "frayfullness" ofthe fabric.

"Beating" is the act of pushing each individual weft (side-to-side)strand close to the other wefts. This process occurs during weaving. Tightly beaten fabrics are more sturdy, thick, and less "frayful" thanloosely beaten fabrics.

"Bias" cut means that the fabric is cut diagonally, rather than fromside-to-side or up-to-down. Fabric cut on the bias will hardly fray atall, while fabric cut "on the grain" will fray immensely.

So, how did they do those dags, anyway? Well, I'm sure that there was acertain amount of edge finishing, whether that be hemstitching, beeswax,etc. But, a tightly woven wool fabric, which has been stomped andsquashed and beaten with bricks until it is extremely felted, and onwhich dags are cut at least partially on the bias (like oak leaves),will virtually not fray at all. (Unless someone actually pulls at theedge of the fabric.)

Heck, I recently wove a not-too-heavily beaten wool fabric which was onlyfelted as much as the washing-machine would do on one cycle, and even ithardly frayed upon cutting. Yes, pulling at the edges would have takenit apart in seconds, but without pulling, the edges simply didn't fray. (But I did hem it, since it *wasn't* properly felted.)